Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20
  1. #11
    Captain Sean McDonald's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Uk
    Posts
    1,502
    Blog Entries
    2
    Thanks
    131
    Thanked 64 Times in 59 Posts
    I'll have to try Visicover again if they have made their sign up easier..


  2. #12
    New Member Bob Bevan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    4
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Hi All,

    Apologies for the intrusion but I thought it might be useful to respond to some of the queries raised about Visicover in the earlier posts:


    • Sean mentioned that you cannot call Visicover for a quote. Visicover is essentially an online service which means you can not only buy your cover online but also amend it via the website at any time that suits you. This means there are no admin charges and is ultimately what makes us competitive. We do not have a quote line but clients can email us queries which are normally turned around quickly. We also review all the quotes done and then email anyone who looks like they may have had a problem with the process.


    • Dave Morton asked about the claims service. This is the one element which is not online so we provide a 24 hour helpline which goes straight to a UK based aero engineer. Self praise is no recommendation so it you want to find out what policyholders think of the claims service, do a search for Visicover + Claims on the ‘Flyer’ forum (I will wash out my mouth with soap for mentioning the ‘other’ place)!


    • Jetlag queried about cover for French machines, specifically Air Creation. I presume by this you mean French made aircraft as opposed to aircraft kept in France. We currently cover 13 different Air Creation models (Bionix, Ixess, Kiss etc) so if you start an aeroplane quote via the website you can select the applicable model on the ‘aircraft’ page.


    • Oldbaldyman suggests that the minimum £125,000 passenger liability cover is usually totally inadequate and I could not agree more. Indeed we only offer quotes on a combined single limit basis, which not usually means a far higher level of cover for passengers so they have a better chance of being compensated, but also reduces the chance of the aircraft owner suffering financially.


    I hope the above is of help but happy to answer any other questions you might have.

    Cheers,

    Bob
    Visicover.com
    The Home of Online Aircraft Insurance


  3. #13
    Wannabe Pilot terryc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    High Kelling, Norfolk
    Posts
    16
    Thanks
    9
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    I know this is an old thread but just wanted to say that I rang Crispin Speers. What aircraft, how much, my age.....got a quote in 30seconds!!
    TC


  4. #14
    Captain MadamBreakneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Essex UK
    Posts
    1,718
    Thanks
    93
    Thanked 190 Times in 151 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by terryc View Post
    ... Crispin Speers. ....got a quote in 30seconds!!
    TC
    Been using them for years, mostly the same staff throughout - even handled a rather expensive claim a few years back with calm aplomb.


    Back to just bimbling


  5. #15
    New Member Colin Green's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Wiltshire
    Posts
    3
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 2 Posts
    Just going to describe my experience with insurance through Visicover
    Last August Bank Holiday my QuikR was blown over while in France (St Omer). It was on the ground, not taxying, not flying. I have ground cover only, because as far as I am concerned, engine theft is going to be the biggest cost to me. 6 engines were stolen from our airstrip this year, fortunately not mine. I discussed the cover with a rep from Visicover who assured me that the aircraft was covered for anything that happened on the ground and in fact while taxying, but not covered if the aircraft was flying.
    I informed Visicover of my accident and I was sent a claim form, which was duly filled in. I then get a call saying I was probably not covered. I asked why?. The answer given was "Because the aircraft was in France when the accident happened, it must have been flying". I pointed out that my aircraft was very definitely on the ground and my policy booklet expressly states ground cover and the geographic region called France. I then get another call. This time the explanation gets even stranger. I quote "Ah, you see the ground cover you have is really for self builders. This limits the cover for just a few hours flying in the policy period". I asked for a slightly less bizarre explanation considering I only had ground cover and I knew flying was excluded. "So, what this means is that , for example, a self builder is building his aircraft and the roof of the hanger falls in, he is covered, but if the self builder has completed his aircraft and taken it for a few flights and then the hangar fell in, he would no longer be covered" OK, I said. Where in the policy documents does this get explained. The answer was again slightly confusing. "You see it is in the policy wording. It may not be as clear as we would like. Please look through the documents we sent". I then read out the documents they sent, pointing out that self builder is not mentioned, limitation of flying hours is not mentioned, that ground is clearly defined, taxying is clearly defined and flying is clearly defined.
    " Um we will get back to you was the reply". See you in court was mine
    Apparently, a Damascene moment occurred and I get another call saying all was fine, I was covered, but in future ground cover would not really mean ground cover and cover would not mean cover and any words written down could not be construed to be an accurate description of any cover offered, if in fact cover had been offered.
    I will say that at no time did Visicover get involved, but everything went through Charles Taylor, a loss adjuster. I still havn't heard a peep from Visicover.
    I did get my repair bill paid - albeit eventually - and was required to sign and have independently witnessed my signature that Charles Taylor / Visicover were prepared to pay the bill but I was absolving them of any responsibility (moral or otherwise I do not know) regarding my aircraft.
    I am not sure if this is normal. My gut feeling is that like most insurers, they promise wonders and excellent service and fluffy bunnies and copius quantities of booze and a few virgins (sex or species undefined) thrown in if you sign up, but will try to avoid their obligations unless you put up a fight.
    Never having had to claim before in my (well over 30 years) aviation hobby, I cannot pass judgement on how good or bad Visicover were. I will let others make that call, but just offer the above evidence of their approach and customer care
    The cost to repair my aircraft was much less than the cost of an engine. I wonder if engines are "stolen" to cover the cost of claims made but denied
    Safe flying


  6. #16
    Co-Pilot Randombloke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    944
    Thanks
    309
    Thanked 135 Times in 108 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Colin Green View Post
    I am not sure if this is normal. My gut feeling is that like most insurers, they promise wonders and excellent service and fluffy bunnies and copius quantities of booze and a few virgins (sex or species undefined) thrown in if you sign up, but will try to avoid their obligations unless you put up a fight.
    Never having had to claim before in my (well over 30 years) aviation hobby, I cannot pass judgement on how good or bad Visicover were. I will let others make that call, but just offer the above evidence of their approach and customer care
    I'm wondering if Visicover are regulated by the UK FCA. If so, this warrants a quick mail to them possibly? If they are not, are they really allowed to sell insurance in the UK?

    Your contract was with Visicover, so again, interested in the full legal aspects of this with Charles Taylor as the loss adjuster. Yes, I understand the role of loss adjusters...
    Steve U.
    PG, HG & microlights
    "Weekend bimbler, day to day car driver & genuinely undeserving Southern oik who has never done anything of any worth"


  7. #17
    Captain renmure's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Arbroath(ish) Scottyland
    Posts
    1,170
    Thanks
    90
    Thanked 154 Times in 129 Posts
    Sounds like a shocking experience and good that you were on the ball and not inclined to be rolled over. The issue may be more with the intermediary loss adjuster than Visicover but that's no real excuse.

    [I had a similar(ish) bad experience with loss adjusters following deliberate damage to a house I rented out and which I was covered by landlords residential insurance. The loss adjuster was having fun trying to reduce all my financial loss to nothing and excluding this/that/and the next thing and it was becoming a bit of a farce. It ended when I pointed out to the insurer that my insurance cover provided additional cover for my legal expenses in relation to any claim and so I was happy to to engage solicitors to act on my behalf and effectively "let their people talk to my people" ... with all of these people being paid at their expense.... and it all faded away with the loss adjuster making not another peep]

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to renmure For This Useful Post:

    Randombloke (01-12-18)


  9. #18
    New Member Colin Green's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Wiltshire
    Posts
    3
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 2 Posts
    Hi All
    Visicover contacted me yesterday having read my note I posted on this forum. It does seem this was a genuine mistake on their part and they have admitted to a less than perfect customer experience. Suffice to say the loss adjuster who dealt with my case (not Al Greensmith, who was very good) has now been taken aside and basic concepts such as ground, flying, legal obligation and definition of a twit have been duly explained.
    I think Visicover should be given a reprieve. I will not pass final judgement until I see my renewal quote though!!!. I hope the insurers understand that by trying to claw back money by significantly and unreasonably increasing premiums after a claim has been made, this leads to claim inflation.
    Lets hope the weather plays ball soon and we can take to the skies once more

  10. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Colin Green For This Useful Post:

    Arielarts (06-12-18), damienair (04-12-18), Gentreau (04-12-18)


  11. #19
    Co-Pilot D-Flyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    172
    Thanks
    17
    Thanked 9 Times in 9 Posts
    I’ve always considered insurance providers (underwriters and brokers) to be in an unfortunate position. The business model for insurance is essentially a parasitic one - bleed as much as you can get away with from the client, and give back as little as possible in the event of a claim. Always treat as suspicious and at arms length is my mantra!


  12. #20
    Captain Gentreau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Budapest, Hungary
    Posts
    2,483
    Blog Entries
    4
    Thanks
    207
    Thanked 173 Times in 136 Posts
    I think we also need to realise that insurance is fundamentally a long-term proposition which doesn't hold well with our current business climate where short-term gain is what matters.
    When shareholders want to sack the board because a company had one bad year, it is difficult for the traditional business model of insurers to survive.

    In theory, they should be looking at the long term probability of claims for a particular risk or set of risks and accepting that, especially in a small market like aviation, that there will be good years and bad years.
    The problem seems to be that if they have a bad year, albeit just a statistical anomoly, there is pressure for a knee-jerk increase in premiums.
    The actuaries who estimate the probabilities of each risk are pretty good at their jobs and would tell the company that the probability of x or y happening over the long term is, let's say 5%, based on data from the last 10 or 20 years.
    Unfortunately, if next year the actual occurence is 10%, there will be huge pressure on the company to increase premiums to reflect this "new" level of risk.
    The three most useless things in aviation:
    • The air above you.
    • The runway behind you.
    • The fuel in the bowser.

    Semper specto in clara parte vitae.

    .


Similar Threads

  1. insurance...
    By Thedude in forum Microlight Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 27-01-16, 14:36 PM
  2. Insurance
    By Terry Viner in forum Microlight Discussion
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 26-06-14, 22:03 PM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 22-05-11, 23:39 PM
  4. insurance
    By garry in forum Off Topic Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 29-11-10, 22:27 PM
  5. Insurance
    By Jon S in forum Microlight Discussion
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 05-02-10, 09:56 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •